The Daily times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1886-1889, 1887-10-08


with the purchasers, who have so rendered
the coupons for taxes, they will have to
pay all the costs, losses, and damages
suffered by the taxpayers in the suits
brought under these acts. And they
further allege that the coupon unissued
in their hands will be rendered worthless
By the proceedings against the taxpayers
which have already purchased and tend
cred part Of them. And they allege
that the costs alone, which as guarantors
they would have 10 pay, would amount
TO greatly more than sum necessary 10
give jurisdiction to this court.
1t is my opinion that this is a sufficient
pecuniary interest to give the complain
ants standing in the Circuit Court.
They are the holders of certain chooses
in action, negotiable, valuable, market
able, and useful in the payment Of taxes.
Every person 10 whom the compliments
sell them, and who uses them for the only
purpose for which they are sold, 10 re-
Quired by law 10 be- sued for so doing, and
by law II is made impossible TO defend
the suit All the purchasers from the
cOmplainants when sued are entitled to
call on them to defend such suits a. may
be brought, and the expense of so doing
is greater than the value of the coupons
There is no question or doubt as to
whether or not the defendant State Off
GERS will proceed 10 enforce these acts
and creaie The loss Of cOmplainanis. The
act Is imperative and the officers are
bound 10 obey it tin it is declared uncon-
sliWtiOnal. In the cases at bar, where
suits have already been brought against
purchasers with guarantee in writing
from cOmplainants, there can be little
doubt that the amount in controversy
exceeds the iurisdictional amount re
Quired by statute, and as little, that the
remedy by injunction TO prevent multi
plicitv Of suits and stop agrievOus wrong
attempted by State officers, without any
authority. Is the proper remedy.
This case differs from that of Marye
ana Parsons. Here there is no attempt
To- make a State officer, by mandatory in-
junction, receive coupons from coupon
holder who was not taxpayer, as was
attempted then. This is an application
for injunction to prevent the states oii-
GERS from enforcing an unconstitutional
law against taxpayers, who have on may
purchase coupons for the payment OF
taxes from the complainants, and thus
render those coupons they have sold and
those they hold equally worthless
So far as the coupons i'm the hands OF
the complainants unsOld are concerned,
II appears TO me that when the State am
nOunces to all taxpayers, who alone can on
will purchase them, that If they do so The
state will refuse 20 receive them tor
taxes, but will bring suit against every
taxpayer who offers them, 10 violates
every obligation of the contract and
utterly DESTROYS the value of complain.
ants property. Ii is idle to say that the
compiainanis ought to wait till each
small taxpayer is sued before they seek
to enioin the officer The very object OF
the writ of injunction, as we said before
Is TO prevent wrongs and multiplicity
of suits equal 20 the number of coupons
sold by them And il is equally idle "a
say that the complainants have remedy
al law, for even If that were SO, which i'
not the truth in fsCt. 90 forbid the equity
court from issuing the writ of injunction
there must not only be a remedy at law
but that remedy must be equally as
prompt, certain, efficient, and general as
the remedy in equity.
In the case of Allen vs.. the Baltimore
and Ohio railroad. which presented the
question whether this court has the
power TO restrain am officer of Nirginl,
i'm the execution of an unc0nstitltona
statute, The Supreme Court ia, United
States $40, sums up this whole matter
" Where the rights In jeopardy says Tho
court are those of private citizens, anc
are of those classes which the Constitu.
ton of the United States either conier'
or has taken under its protection, and nc
ADEQUATE remedy for their enforcement Is
provided by the forms and proceeding.
purely legal, the same necessity m
yokes and justiies In cases to whicl
/ its remedies can be applied that
jurisdiction I'm equity vested by the Con
/ stitution of the United States, and whicl
cannot be affected by the legislation oil
+ the State" No one has attempted tC
defend the cOnstituti0nality Of the sys
+ tenn of legislation which we have beer
considering. The act OF 1887 is popu
larly known through the public press a.
/ the coupon crusher' and is well styled
I for its effect is 10 destroy as well the
nerotiability as the tax-receiyable char
acter of the coupon
The injunction will issue, as prayed iI
each case